Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Democrats, Unions Vital for Lieberman

One of the strongest union backers of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman during his Democratic primary run (which ended in defeat) is sticking with the incumbent as he competes as an independent in the general election.

"Even though the Democratic establishment is abandoning the three-term senator to line up behind Ned Lamont, the [International Association of Firefighters] will continue to stand with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman," said union head Harold Schaitbarger. "In our view, party labels don't matter."

The IAFF decision counters the United Auto Workers' endorsement of Lamont announced last week. UAW didn't endorse a candidate in the primary.

Lamont will score another major coup today when theService Employees International Union is expected to formally endorse his candidacy. 1199/SEIU, the influential New York branch of the organization, had endorsed Lamont in the primary but the national union had not weighed in. Lamont has also been endorsed by the American Federation of Teachers and the International Association of Machinists.

Other labor organizations either haven't committed to a candidate or are staying completely out of the contest. The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, who backed Lieberman in the primary, has not chosen a candidate for the general election. The AFL-CIO did not endorse a candidate in the primary and will not do so in the general election.

In order to defeat Lamont in the fall, Lieberman needs to hold on to those Democrats who are currently supporting him. An August 17 Quinnipiac University poll showed Lieberman up 49 percent to 38 percent overall, and losing to Lamont 60 percent to 33 percent among Democrats. In an American Research Group poll released Aug. 22 , Lieberman led Lamont 44 percent to 42 percent among all the voters surveyed (Republican candidate and former state Rep. Alan Schlesinger took three percent), while trailing 65 percent to 30 percent among Democrats.

Lieberman knows he needs to keep those 30 percent (or so) of Democrats who currently support him on board until November. Losing major labor endorsements could make that difficult -- especially considering that Lamont has won the support of nearly every national Democrat. (Lamont secured another major player when Howard Wolfson, a member of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's political inner circle, signed on as an adviser to the campaign over the weekend.)

Lieberman's path to victory is also hindered by his perceived strong support for the war in Iraq. Not surprisingly, Lieberman is working to mollify Democratic voters concerned about the war. He has called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and late last week said he would consider a proposal offered by Connecticut Republican Rep. Chris Shays that would establish a timetable for U.S. troops to leave the country.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 27, 2006; 9:55 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Friday Governors Line: And Then There were 15
Next: Inouye Drops Lieberman


Oh, and KOZ, I'm a liberal who isn't afraid to fight or thinks the US shouldn't be at war... In Afghanistan. Where Al Qaida is. We need more troops there, which we cannot do because they are busy getting shot at in Bush's Folly. And Saddam was a bad guy, yes, so were the leaders in MOgadishu, but as I recall, your Repubs wanted to cut and run from that one at the first opportunity.

Posted by: Will | August 31, 2006 1:12 PM | Report abuse


It's against the law to present yourself as an attorney when you are not in Legal Matters only. That's an important distinction you missed. Though sleazy, it's not illegal to chat up a girl and say you're a lawyer. It is, however, illegal to recieve money for legal services rendered without a licence.

Posted by: Will | August 31, 2006 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Since you asked:
I consider a liberal to be anyone who espouses (among other things) a national health care system.

Frankly, the Constitution does not give the US government the right to set up such a policy and therefore, only the states can create them.

My view of Liberals is people who want to spend my tax dollars on large government social projects (Section 8 housing, Social Security, Welfare, etc).

Posted by: Dan W | August 30, 2006 2:15 PM | Report abuse


Can't send the peaceniks back to Haight Ashbury. Much too expensive real estate

Only folks who can afford it are Investment Bankers, international arms dealers and Oil company executives- San Francisco is ranked second most expensive housing market in the country.

I thought you lived in Georgetown with the rest of the President's staff?

Posted by: zippy | August 29, 2006 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Campaign issue aside, do you favor single payer health plans as the best solution for US health care.
Last Thursday I found myself in the audience of a brief impromptu discussion of the Canadian health care system, which, as I understand it, is basically a national single payer program.
The speaker pointed out that the big advantage is the elimination of paperwork in medical offices, yielding a fistful of cost savings. The big disadvantage seems to be that demand for medical services is outstripping supply, and the result is that Canadian oncology patients are coming to American hospitals (at Canadian expense)to alleviate the Canadian backlog.
I have an open mind on this topic, and since you raised the issue, I would appreciate your take.

Posted by: Mouse | August 29, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Drindl's brain (rumored to exist) is not connected in the normal fashion. another example of what I have been saying all along. so clever, so pointless.

go Joe, knock those peaceniks back to haight-ashbury.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 29, 2006 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Time for a new topic, chris... how about this very important vote in California, that may impact schwarzenegger's re-election chances:

'The Democratic-controlled Legislature is on the verge of sending Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a bill that would create a state-run universal health care system, testing him on an issue that voters rate as one of their top concerns in this election year.

On a largely party-line 43-30 vote, the Assembly approved a bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, that would eliminate private medical insurance plans and establish a statewide health insurance system that would provide coverage to all Californians. The state Senate has already approved the plan once and is expected this week to approve changes that the Assembly made to the bill.

Schwarzenegger has said he opposes a single-payer plan like the one Kuehl's bill would create, but the governor has not offered his own alternatives for fixing the state's health care system. As many as 7 million people are uninsured in the state, and spiraling costs have put pressure on business and consumers.'

Posted by: Drindl | August 29, 2006 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Today you write: "The AFL-CIO did not endorse a candidate in the primary and will not do so in the general election."

But on August 8th, you wrote "Lieberman is relying on a more traditional get-out-the-vote effort managed by organized labor. (He has been endorsed by the state's AFL-CIO.)"

So Chris: when you say the AFL-CIO didn't endorse a candidate in the primary, were you trying to mislead your readers by omitting the endorsement you wrote about before, or are you just too sloppy to fact-check your work?

Posted by: Califlander | August 29, 2006 2:32 AM | Report abuse


If you weren't so quick to jump in with one of your "gotcha" comments, you might have gotten my point.

I would vote for Lieberman not because I agree with him, but because I disagree with him LESS than I disagree with Lamont. Get it smarty?

Posted by: murphy | August 29, 2006 1:19 AM | Report abuse

'I wouldn't vote for Lieberman because I agree with him'

Like I always knew, you people are incoherent and incapable of rational thought processes.

Posted by: drindl | August 29, 2006 12:43 AM | Report abuse


What a great question! I consider myself to be a bible-centered Christian voter and I would definitely vote for Senator Lieberman.

If you want to keep it simple and reduce things to the right to life movement, I wouldn't vote for Lieberman because I agree with him. He's certainly on the wrong side of the abortion debate. But given the choice between him and Lamont on that issue, I'll take Lieberman any day of the week. Lieberman has shown himself to be somewhat bipartisan (voted in favor of Roberts). I suspect that Lamont is the embodiment of the far-left that supports him, dedicated to his pro-abortion party above all else.

Posted by: murphy | August 28, 2006 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Is there anyone posting at this site who considers himself or herself to be a bible-centered Christian voter?
If so, would you vote for Senator Lieberman in the coming election?
I ask because I live in Maine and the fundamentalist Christian voters I know well enough to discuss politics with won't for Senator Snowe (or her Democratic opponent), when she is up for re-election because of her stance on abortion and gay rights issues. Of course, they have not had their beliefs tested in a hotly contested race in 15 years.
So I am wondering if the typical born again Christian voter will be able to bring himself or herself to support a candidate who has a history of support for the right to life and gay rights movement?
What do you who consider yourself born again Christians think?

Posted by: Mouse | August 28, 2006 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I think that traitor Joe needs to go! He sold out.

Posted by: reececonrad | August 28, 2006 7:11 PM | Report abuse

You write:

"One of the strongest union backers of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman during his Democratic primary run ... is sticking with the incumbent as he competes as an independent in the general election.

"[T]he [International Association of Firefighters] will continue to stand with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman," said union head Harold Schaitbarger. "In our view, party labels don't matter."

The IAFF decision counters the United Auto Workers' endorsement of Lamont announced last week. UAW didn't endorse a candidate in the primary.

Lamont will score another major coup today when the Service Employees International Union is expected to formally endorse his candidacy. 1199/SEIU, the influential New York branch of the organization, had endorsed Lamont in the primary but the national union had not weighed in. Lamont has also been endorsed by the American Federation of Teachers and the International Association of Machinists."

A few questions:

Where does the IAFF stand in the "heirarchy" relative to the other unions you reference?

How much union support has "defected" since Lieberman lost the democratic primary?

How does the reshuffling of union support away from Lieberman, or in support of Lamont, play out in your calculation of the 30 percent of Democrats "Lieberman knows he needs to keep ... until November?"

Just asking.

Posted by: Todd B. | August 28, 2006 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, "Hasn't read anything in 6 years.... hasn't had anything of note to say.... tenor of spew....resorts to insults.... nothing to work with.... fools.... childish behavior.... "

These are your thoughts about "the Left" from just your last post.

Actually, you and Bhoomes seem to love trying to lower the tone of discussion on this site.

Since the GOP controls all of the executive and legislative and most of legal branches of government, just exactly why are you so vitriolic? You should be happy as clams that the country is on the course Bush set.

Back to the discussion... if Indy Joe is so confident of a win, why is he trimming his Iraq sails to tack with a proposed withdrawal timetable.... what happened to his proclaimed "moral" stance on the war?

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 28, 2006 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I don't beg you to go away, I just ask nicely, because we Dems are like that. I have to remind you that you are one of the 'jackasses' thaat come here. You just get so mad because no one wants to hear your slogans, your lies, your inaccuracies, your hyperbole, your baseless arguments, your distortions, and yes, your talkng points. You have nothing original to say.

I am tired of being insulted by morons, I'm sure all Dems are tird of being insulted by morons, accused of treason and being 'soft on terror' and other reactionary, outrageous advertising slogans and twaddle.

Why do you keep coming back?

Posted by: Drindl | August 28, 2006 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Well Larry, to be fair, Kerry got fewer votes than Bush, so at last count Liberals were (presumably) in the minority. But both sides seem interested in pretending like everyone agrees with them and no one agrees with the other side. Not the most persuasive argument in my opinion.

Posted by: Chris | August 28, 2006 5:58 PM | Report abuse


Quick answer to your question. In a number of words, like in an earlier post, the American method of parties changing the results of elections they don't like short of smart bombs...Steal the ballot boxes.

Sorry that's facetious. The short and sweet answer is Diebold. The Ohio company that designed and built the electronic voting machines used in Ohio and Florida...and strangely enough....a major comtributor to the President and the RNC.

Alot like here in Chicago. The election's not over until the River wards have reported.

Only in Ohio they can change the results electronically and with no paper trail! Absolute genius in American ingenuity.

Posted by: everyman | August 28, 2006 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Please explain why the LIBERAL candidate Gore got 600000 more votes than Bush. Kind of ruins your theory that we are the minority. The truth is you neocons have not won a pres election since 1988 and you just cant stand it that most Americans are not on your side. Remember cheating is not winning.oh nevermind.. I am talking to a neocon.

Posted by: Larry | August 28, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

As usual i am confronted with these geniuses of the Left. One hasn't read anything in 6 years and thinks AL Gore won the 2000 election. then wonders about how those polls could be wrong. the same polls that showed Kerry won in 2004. Maybe next year you will get this news.
the other hasn't had anything of note to say since the early 60s as evidenced by the tenor of the spew. When confronted forcibly, she resorts to insults and begging for the opponent to go away. no sense in confronting any issues because there is obviously nothing there to work with. but i can promise the retort to all this will be more insults, more belittling because all Rs are (pick one , evil, stupid, etc) and don't warrant an answer.
fools, you will continue in the minority because of this childish bahavior. the voters are way more sophisicated than that.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Hi Chris, get a "Fix" Fact-Fix at FireDogLake. Jane's got some corrections to your union-endorsement errors right here:

Posted by: TeddySanFran | August 28, 2006 5:52 PM | Report abuse

It's not against the law to tell people you're an attorney when you're not. Otherwise there'd be a lot of lonely dudes going to jail for trying to pick up women out of their league. It is, however, against the law to practice without a license (unless you're defending yourself).

You may well have forgotten more about the law than I'll ever know. Stranger things have happened I guess, but you damn sure don't know the difference between murder and manslaughter.

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority"

n. the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" (an evil intent prior to the killing). It is distinguished from murder (which brings greater penalties) by lack of any prior intention to kill anyone or create a deadly situation."

Just saying, it doesn't help your arguments to run around pretending like you know everything. Here's a tip: you don't.

Posted by: Chris | August 28, 2006 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Damn those polls showing Dems with a double didget lead must be wrong. How do you explain that the American people chose Al Gore by 600000 votes over Bush? I am so happy you idiotic neocons are soon gone.

Posted by: Larry | August 28, 2006 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I repeat, there's no point in trying to having a conservation with these clowns. Why don't you zouk, go over to LGF or some other rabid winger site, where everybody thinks and talks EXACTLY like you. In fact, you'll know what they're going to say before they even say it, cause you all have the same vapid nonsense memorized.

Also, everyone won't think you're a clown the way they do here.

Posted by: Drndl | August 28, 2006 5:43 PM | Report abuse

P rich, don't you know by now that the jackasses who frequent this site aren't all that interested in having a logical discussion. I don't know if it is lack of intellect or force of habit, but all you will find here is an occasional single line of something interesting buried in a quagmire of insults and dumb Dem retreads.

I don't suppopse there will be much of a race, despite the Lefties and MSM's desire. Lieberman has this thing locked up tight.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

And even if I weren't an attorney (which I am), it doesn't stop you from being wrong about murder/manslaughter (which you are).

Posted by: Chirs | August 28, 2006 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"Quick Mr. Attorney tell me when/why investigators can question a suspect without rights advisement?"

When the suspect isn't under arrest.

Posted by: Chris | August 28, 2006 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, Mr. IQ, the word is 'paucity'. You, like most 'conservatives' are virtually illiterate, which I believe is because you are stupid. Seriously stupid. But that's what makes you believe all this crap shoveled to you by Rove. You're simple. And you are also dishonest.

'because Dems don't support wire-tapping ' --No, we don't support illegal wiretapping. We support the kind the Brits do. Seems to work for them, doesn't it? But that's because their intelligence services are not riddled with crony morons.

Posted by: Drindl | August 28, 2006 5:34 PM | Report abuse

that should have been paucity of thought, now clearly demonstrated by those towers of independant thinking Larry, Drindl et al. I still have never seen one decent idea from this set of philosophers, just insults and chanting. If all the Rs left the site, what would you have left to say to the rest of the losing electorate?

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2006 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Back to my original comment this morning.

What does all of this have to do With Lieberman and his union support/lack thereof?

Posted by: poor richard | August 28, 2006 5:30 PM | Report abuse

did not think you would know, I have forgot more about the law than you would ever know.It is also against the law to represent yourself as an attorney when you are not.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 5:28 PM | Report abuse

because Dems don't support wire-tapping - a preemptive approach to preventing a crime and they used a law (soon to be toppled) which is designed for american courts, which prosecute after the fact.
Because Dems don't support the offensive nature of the war we are fighting now and prefer to go on the defensive and retreat into a shelter in the backyard.
Because Dems equate Israel and Hez as equal on all scales.
there are most certainly two distinct views of these issues. One is a losing view.

Why do you dems and Libs, who haven't had an original thought since the 60s, insist on calling every new idea of argument some sort of "talking point". did you ever consider that it is a talking point because it 1. is an issue that people care about and 2. it is understandable to many and 3. it is a valid point worthy of debate.
But instead of taking the debate, you chant "talking point" as if that wins for your side. Well it doesn't and the parsity of your intellectual thought is now evident for all to see and the results are in. You lost the Presidency, lost the house and lost the senate. Next will be judiciary. see what happens when you respond with dumb chanting.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2006 5:28 PM | Report abuse

'I don't think Isreal intended to kill civilians - what purpose would it serve. Hezbollah firing rockets randomly into Isreal served no purpose but to inspire terror, and thus was a terrorist act.'

I think you're riight. I simply brought up the israeli actions to demonstrate the troll's overbroad definition of terrorism. But you won't be able to engage in a substantive discussion with either of these clowns, bhoommes or zouk, because both of them seem to have been born without a cerebral cortex, poor lads.

Posted by: Drindl | August 28, 2006 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Give me a break Chris, you are no attorney,just some loser who wishes he was a professional. Quick Mr. Attorney tell me when/why investigators can question a suspect without rights advisement?

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 5:22 PM | Report abuse

KOZ you are one sick frightened cowardly SOB. You represent your employers at the RNC very well

Posted by: Larry | August 28, 2006 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Well, Zouk is onto something there. The difference between Isreal and Hezbollah is a matter of intent. I don't think Isreal intended to kill civilians - what purpose would it serve. Hezbollah firing rockets randomly into Isreal served no purpose but to inspire terror, and thus was a terrorist act.

(though the preventing/prosecuting thing doesn't work well. All those terrorists are guilty of conspiracy before they act, and so arresting them before hand and trying them and throwing them in jail would all be perfectly fine.)

But what does that have to do with whether I'm a democrat or a republican? Why would you ruin a perfecly good argument by resorting to name calling, zouk?

Posted by: Chris | August 28, 2006 5:17 PM | Report abuse


with all due respect...your response is a case in point of the results of orchestrated feeding of RNC propaganda in an information controlled political environment.

Unless you share office space with Charles Krauthhammer or the guys from the National review.

Ain't Democracy around the world wonderful. Unless of course, the their vote doesn't go your way. I guess that's what smart bombs are for.

In the US, when an election doesn't go the administration's way, all they do is steal ballot boxes. Thank God for American non-violence.

Posted by: zippy | August 28, 2006 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I think Hez's kidnap of the two soldiers will be the historical disaster. the indications are that the citizens of Lebanon rightly blame this action for the smashing of their country.
Democratic elections are great but when the people elect the wrong guys, they still have to pay the price. Lebanon needs to learn this lesson as does Palestine. If thyey want to have killers as their leaders, then thay can be led into that death.
We are headed for a rather ugly war with these extreme elements associated with Iran. they are now testing and demonstrating subs with missiles, maybe soon nuclear. I for one, do not care to live in a bomb shelter and can recognize the gathering threat from this region/mentality. why are we apologizing for being succesful, free and happy in the West. It is time to eliminate this blight from the planet. they don't even write books. why do you Libs want to lose this conflict? Are you so accustomed to losing elections that now you will only feel right if you lose wars too? I have enjoyed beating the stuffing out of you Dems in the voter booths and look forward to extinguishing those crazy Muslims too.

As for your definition of terror, I think it lines up nicely with the manslaughter/murder argument. It is the intent that matters. Israel drops leaflets to warn of impending doom. Hez fires random rockets at civilian targets and then hide in schools and hospitals. See the difference? there is an important distinction for fighting terror and fighting regular crime. One is preemptive and has different rules. Police get criminals after the fact. do you want to find the perpetrators after the city of NY is bombed or prevent the attack? what methods will you allow to stop a crime instead of prosecuting one?

Put on your thinking caps and refrain from the pointless insults and Dem chanting.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2006 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"Only thing going on is a war on terrorism that the dems don't have the stomach to fight because of their lack of backbone."

Oh, I was also a biology major. There are plenty of animals that have a stomach but no backbone. I don't think there are any that have a backbone but lack a stomach. But nice job mixing your metaphors.

Posted by: Chris | August 28, 2006 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Just an add on. I have not predicted the 08, just my favorite ticket Clinton/Warner, who seem to be, in my opinion, the best choice at this time, remembering there are a whole bunch of things that will happen before 08.

Posted by: lylepink | August 28, 2006 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"Chris, you are obviuosly stupid. Manslaughter is murder in the 3rd degree."

I may be stupid, but I am also an attorney. The difference between manslaughter and murder is the intent of the perpetrator. If you want me to get all Latin on you, it's called mens rea. If you get drunk, fall asleep at the wheel and run someone over, that's manslaughter. If you get in your car, aim at someone and run them down, that's murder.

Like I said, leave the legal assessments to the professionals. You're doing a good enough job making a fool of yourself without also displaying your ignorance of the law.

Posted by: Chris | August 28, 2006 4:37 PM | Report abuse


No.....It is not an accusation that American pilots are terrorists.

The comment suggested that bhoomes definition of terrorist was much too broad.

As far as whether or not the Israelis who managed and targeted the bombings associated with the latest "incursion" into Lebanon are terrorists, that should be left to future historians and ethicists to determine.

I don't think we have to wait that long to know the incursion was a political disaster for Israel and the White House, as well as being a tragic human disaster for the civilian populations of both sides.

Posted by: everyman | August 28, 2006 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Bush stated last week that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Why did we attack Iraq? Please explain. Rumsfeld said he KNEW where WMDs were in Iraq. Where are they? Please explain. Lieing cheating and stealing are excepted forms of behavior for this small group of neocons. The American people no longer trust what they say. Their massive defeat is imminent.

Posted by: Larry | August 28, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

More blather from neocon fantasy land. bhoomes says Dems are not trusted with power. Explain to me why American people chose Al Gore over Bush by 600000 votes. Explain to me why Dems controlled congress most of last 80 years. KOZ-who are the killers? The terrorists are from Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Where are WMDs? Where is bin Laden? I know all those pesky facts.

Posted by: Larry | August 28, 2006 3:59 PM | Report abuse

TN Republican Activist Arrested on Voter Fraud Charges.

From the Nashville, TN Post:

Shirley Ward, president of the Tennessee Federation of Republican Women, has turned herself in to authorities and has been arrested on charges of voter fraud by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, according to department spokesperson Jennifer Johnson.

Ward, a Tipton County resident, has been charged with knowingly voting in the wrong district for a Tipton County Commission race. While Johnson could not say which County Commission seat was affected, she said the winner of the race had won by one vote.

A call to the Tipton County Election Commission confirmed that the August 3 election for Tipton County Commission race, District 2, between John Arnold McIntyre Jr. and Billy Dan Huggins was decided by one vote. McIntyre was the victor in the non-partisan race.

Posted by: Gaithersburg, MD | August 28, 2006 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Ann Coulter Quotes (you know, the woman who speaks "the truth")

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

"The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors."

"There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats."

"Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."

Posted by: Colin | August 28, 2006 3:49 PM | Report abuse

9:04am -- "The people of CT and the rest of the Democrats do not want...Lieberman in the Senate."

A majority of CT voters poll in favor of Lieberman, yet I've heard this kind of rallying cry from several folks around here. According to the polls, the people of CT DO want Lieberman in the Senate, and they DON'T want Lamont.

Please, a little recognition of the fact that Independents and Republicans in CT are people too.

Posted by: murphy | August 28, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

What is this now? the trotsky-Lenin propaganda site for murderers. you equate american and Israeli pilots, who risk thier lives trying not to hit non-military targets, with the enemy who intends to harm as many non-combatants in thier media war? I encourage you to shout these views to the entire american voting population and prove to them,. as you have to me, what a bunch of amoral wack-jobs you all really are. It is so apparant that you have absolutely no business making American foreign policy and the voters of Conn will demonstrate that no one is ready to surrender to the killers.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2006 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Keep on everywoman, you are the reason we win elections. Do innocent people get killed in war? of course they do, but our military trys hard with precision weapons to reduce civilian casualties, whereas terrorist intentionally kill innocents. Now that's pretty easy to understand for most people but when you give moral equivalence to Al Queda and our american military, it is easy to see why you people are not trusted with any power.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 3:22 PM | Report abuse

>>>The administration needed a 'War on Terror' to justify neutralizing opponents to an ally and control Oil.

What do you think PNAC was created for?

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." - PNAC, 2000's%20Defenses%22

pg 51

Posted by: F&B | August 28, 2006 3:10 PM | Report abuse

forgot to mention.

Didn't we support that Bad Guy Saddam Hussein under The great communicator, Ronald Reagan and GB1?

Our policy people sure do know how to pick'em. Good thing they don't play to ponies to pay the National Debt.

Posted by: everyman | August 28, 2006 3:08 PM | Report abuse


be careful how widely you cast your net defining 'terrorist'. You make every American pilot who drops a bomb and every artillery officer who lobs a shell a terrorist.

By logical connection then, you must consider the Israelis terrorists for targeting Lebanese to the point where their pilots intentionally missed? (Which I must assume is totally opposite your poliical views?)

Bottom line. You have to separate movements from their some of their radical members.

Terror is murder no matter who you redefine/reposition it.

But it won't stop if it is being used to support a political agenda that our policy does nothing but reinforce.

If US foreign policy did someting (other than supplying and'or dropping bombs) to help resolve the poverty, political tyranny and conditions that cause people to support radical movements like Al Queda, Hamas and Hezbollah, maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are in.

After all, it was our CIA who put the Shah of Iran in place-you know the guy who terrorized Iranians until he was overthrown by the Shiites.

And we gave that Government a nuclear reactor and weapons Grade Plutonium (that occurred under Dick Cheneys mentor Dick Nixon I think)

What a futile argument when the US has such a history of supporting such a bunch of losers over the past 50 years.

Posted by: everyman | August 28, 2006 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: You may have hit the nail on the head. People will call someone a "liberal" or a "conservative" when their opponent supports something the person does not agree with. In Wisconsin, we take up the issue of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in November. The terms are being used as sledge hammers on those on both sides of the issue. I cannot see how the words "Conservative" or "Liberal" furthers the discussion or would help undecided voters make up their minds. It has become an insult. A better way to have the discussion would be for speaker to identify the official's position on a topic instead of applying a label. And please, could we put an end to the overly simplistic OJ Simpsonisms (If the glove don't fit, you must acquit). Or, as we are seeing in the Lieberman-Lamont race, --cut and run. Don't give us slogans. Give us a plan to get out of the quagmire.

Posted by: Merry | August 28, 2006 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I hope and pray the Reps nominate senator macaca! But as Virginia slowly turns a healthy shade of BLUE it looks like he will lose in Nov.

Posted by: Larry | August 28, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes says that Dems don't care, but "we republicans want honest public servants." Like the Liar in Chief? Like Tom DeLay? Like the head of the old-boy's giveaway network, Dick Cheney? What a joke.

Posted by: Susan | August 28, 2006 2:37 PM | Report abuse

' I do not know how you define terrorist but in my book it is any group who murders innocents not combatants.'

Oh really? So I guess that would include Israelis who blew up a convoy of refugees that was mostly children, a convoy waving white flags?

Posted by: drindl | August 28, 2006 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Nice try everywoman, but just because terrorist groups have an agenda doesn't mean they are not terrorist. I do not know how you define terrorist but in my book it is any group who murders innocents not combatants.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, everyman, for explaining things to the simple folk. It doesn't seem to occur to them that somehow all our 'enemies' have a lot of oil under their sand. Just a coincidence, I guess.

What kind of idiot would think George Allen would win a national election when he can't even carry Virginia? He's a nutbag and the more the spotlight is turned on him, the more he will crack, just like katherine harris. I hope he is your candidate...bring him on.

Posted by: louisa | August 28, 2006 2:30 PM | Report abuse

poor richard's pendulum. Nice ring to it.

Let's get back to the "middle". drindl says there is no middle.

Actually that's the problem of where the 50.00000000000000001% (not counting vote machine rigging and bogus polling places in Ohio) come from. They are the mushrooms of society who do their civic duty and vote. Problem is, They are kept in the dark by administration secrecy policies and fed well, you know what, by Fox and CNN in the interests of the RNC.

So. When the Rebublicans need something they do a major PR blitz to convince them of their way of thinking.

It's the reason for Freedom of the press....whatever is left of that.

and bhoomes. Ther is no 'War on Terror'. That is a great gimmick the president's PR folks came up with. Best way to galvanize the masses is to give them a common enemy.

For 200 years, Ireland rebelled against England, culminating in the 'troubles' bombings by IRA and UDF. Was that part of the War on Terror? No. it was rebellion against the Racism of the Crown.

The Contras tried to overthrow their government by killing everyone who went through one of their checkpoints. SHould that be included in the War on Terror? No. That was our CIA trying to overthrow a legitimate government.

The Basque Separtists fought for years, bombing civilian targets. Should that be considered part of the War on Terror. No.

So now we have a group successfully attacks US soil. Bad thing. You bet. Should it have happened. No. Is it a some new sort of war. No. Like so many times before, it is disgruntled religious and political zealots doing some very nasty things.. It's been something going on since the Visgoths overran the Roman Empire.

The administration needed a 'War on Terror' to justify neutralizing opponents to an ally and control Oil.

War on Terror. Great, emotional advertising slogan.
Nothing to do with terror.

Posted by: everyman | August 28, 2006 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Good observation about McCain. The fact that the mainstream media loves McCain will be his death kneel once the primaries start. I can assure you, being a true blue conservative, that we conservatives have a genuine hate of the media and would never in a millon years back their candidate(McCain)So if good old Macaca Allen can just win reelction, he is looking real good for the nomination. I believe that is why this paper has been trying to take Allen out. To protect their boy.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Here's a little truth from yet another from bush league, um, administration official who quit in disgust... just read it. You will be throughly disgusted.

'On the evening of September 11, 2001, I was one of a small group of State Department staffers called in to confer with Secretary of State Colin Powell and work through the night to produce a diplomatic strategy for assembling an international coalition to destroy Osama bin Laden's base in Afghanistan. Powell took this strategy to the White House on the morning of September 12, and it became the blueprint for marshaling international support for Operation Enduring Freedom, launched months later.

In the weeks following 9-11, my colleagues and I at State developed a comprehensive diplomatic strategy to support the war on terrorism. This strategy envisioned, beyond a military campaign in Afghanistan, a sustained global effort to "wrap up" bin Laden's operational networks and affiliates in the Middle East and elsewhere. Iraq would continue to be contained. As other state sponsors of terrorism like Iran and Syria came to the United States to offer assistance against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, that help would be accepted; this tactical cooperation would then be used as a platform for persuading these states to terminate their own involvement with anti-Israeli terrorist groups in return for a positive strategic relationship with Washington. The United States would also develop a credible plan for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict....

Posted by: drindl | August 28, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Tucker Carlson explains why the press [including Chris] falls all over itself fawning on McCain:

'McCain ran an entire presidential campaign aimed primarily at journalists. He understood that the first contest in a presidential race is always the media primary. He campaigned hard to win it. To a greater degree than any candidate in thirty years, McCain offered reporters the three things they want most: total access all the time, an endless stream of amusing quotes, and vast quantities of free booze.'

Posted by: drindl | August 28, 2006 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I have made predictions on the POTUS elections since 1948 just as soon as the party choice was announced. Each and every time I have been correct. The one that stands out for me is Bubba, yes that boy from Hope. When I say him announce I said to some friends 'There is our next POTUS.' Now the unions are not what they used to be in the politics of today. Membership is way down, and they vote approximately 60-40 for the dems. Remember I picked Lamont about 10 days before the election and missed his margin by 1%.

Posted by: lylepink | August 28, 2006 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Interesting idea, but I don't know if the governor of Connecticut has that power.

Also Fred I agree that Lieberman has all the right in the world to run as an independent, but if that was what he wanted he should have skipped the primary and run as an independent from the beginning.

Katherine Harris is the worst thing to happen to the GOP in florida EVER. The woman won't get out of the Senate race and her shear presence on the ballot will energize the Democratic base in force. They might just lose the Governership because of her drag on the ballot.

Posted by: Andy R | August 28, 2006 1:32 PM | Report abuse


First of all, it is y'all (both singular and plural) and second, at least we talk to strangers as a courtesy. More than I can say for some states.

Posted by: Fred | August 28, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that Joe Lieberman is now calling for the resignation of Rumsfeld, but look at the implications.

If he loses the Senate race he may have the next SoD job. However, if he wins the Senate race, how about this scenario....

Bush taps him as SoD and the Republican Gov picks somebody to fill his seat.

What are the odds that it would be filled by a Republican? And how would that affect the make-up of the Senate?

Posted by: scootmandubious | August 28, 2006 12:55 PM | Report abuse

'"Katherine Harris-crazy." Fits like a glove, doesn't it?'

Sure does. But she's not the only one. For whatever reason, maybe because the republican party has drifted so far to the extreme right, a lot of their candidates are genuine, certifiable mental cases.

Hillary Clinton's opponents, Kathryn McFarland, actually called a newspaper reporter and told him that Hllary was spying on her in her bedroom -- from a black helicopter.

I'm making a little whirly sign around my ear now...

Oh, and theirs George Macaca, who seems to have a lot of. shall we say, issues, with his family, especially his Tunisian mother...

And I agree with Jackson, VA race is big news. Allen looks to be losing and I guess that kinda puts his presidential campaign in a bad way, don't it?

Posted by: louisa | August 28, 2006 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I don't know whether Chris reads his comments sections when they get this long. If you do, then could you oblige us all with a piece taking another look at the VA Senate race? Last time you had anything to say about it was at least weeks ago (unless I'm forgetting something). Given the series of seperate polls that shoes Webb closing and closing and finally polling 1.4% ahead of Allen, I'm curious to see where on your top 10 this race is. At the very least, would you now agree that this is a top-tier contest?

Posted by: Jackson Landers | August 28, 2006 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, Do you take over the GOP insult and propaganda machine when Bhoomes takes a potty break?

Union endorsements don't count for much anymore, but union "get out the vote" efforts do.

It's hard to understand why LIEberman would make noises about a timetable, that might risk his 30% Dem Iraq hardliners and push GOP voters into supporting their own candidate.

This sounds like a move of desperation, maybe his polls tell him something different that what we are being fed.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 28, 2006 12:37 PM | Report abuse

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."

Stick a fork in her, she's done.

Posted by: louisa | August 28, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

louisa: Heard a new term for insanity on the radio the other day that you may be interested in: "Katherine Harris-crazy." Fits like a glove, doesn't it?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 28, 2006 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"Webb (D): 47.9%
Macaca* (R): 46.6%"

Thanks, Gaithersburg, I nearly choked on my pizza when I read that one.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 28, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Whom did Lieberman disenfranchise? From the tone of these discussions, one would think that Lieberman single-handedly removed the winner of the Democratic primary from the general election ballot. Lieberman has every right to run as an independent to face the judgment of the entire voting populous of Connecticut. Senators in all states are voted upon by the entire voting populace not just the republicans or the democrats or the green party. Whose will has he thwarted? Compare to the 2002 senate election in New Jersey.

Posted by: Fred | August 28, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Larry, I picked that up when I was stationed in Mississippi for 4 years. You may be right about Strickland but no way will Dewine will lose to Sherrie Brown.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Funny thing, you ask anyone, how are Dems too liberal? Someone who's just said they are. But they never answer.

Posted by: Drindl | August 28, 2006 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I am ashamed that bhoomes is from my soon to be BLUE state of Ohio. By the look of the polls there arent too many people like him here. And Brown is leading DeWhine by 10%. Going to be a clean sweep for Dems this year! And we do not say YA'LL in Ohio.

Posted by: Larry | August 28, 2006 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Yes, to some degree you are right about politics being a pendulum but to have significant change you have to have some events to drive it. Like the depression, cold war or Clinton's health plan fiasco. Only thing going on is a war on terrorism that the dems don't have the stomach to fight because of their lack of backbone. I'll be watching to see if all of ya'll will be protesting in the streets after we win again in November. I thought all of you were moving to Canada if Bush won again, why are you still here, be good to your word and move north where the health care if free.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 12:03 PM | Report abuse

merry spouts the conventional wisdom. I hear this endlessly--this meme about how Dems are 'too liberal'. Think, people. Name me one way Dems are 'too liberal'... just one. What does that mean? Or are you just parroting winger talking points?

I agree that the fanatics on the right are scary, no question--but name me one position that Democrats have that is 'fanatic' --that's a joke, right?

Posted by: Drindl | August 28, 2006 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Polls don't lie but liars can be polled!

Posted by: Fred | August 28, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Actually, I agree with Poor Richard. The whole political process is a pendulum. The Dems got too liberal, and lost power. The Repubs are too conservative, and are on their way out--along with conservative Dems. It is the swing voters that decide elections. The closer you are to the middle, the better your chance of election or re-election. The fanatical on either side are scary.

Posted by: Merry | August 28, 2006 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Kinda off topic, but just for your info.

From that bastion of "liburl" thinking, the Wall Street Journal.

VA Senate

Webb (D): 47.9%
Macaca* (R): 46.6%

OH Governor

Strickland (D): 57%
Blackwell (R): 32%

Per Rasmussen

Posted by: Gaithersburg, MD | August 28, 2006 11:49 AM | Report abuse

go away zouk. no one wants you here.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2006 11:46 AM | Report abuse

By "mollify" I assume you mean lie about his former position on Iraq and flip flop into a new position that no one believes him about. LIEberman is toast and America is better for it.

Posted by: Greg in LA | August 28, 2006 11:39 AM | Report abuse

You Libs need to get out of this site for a while and gather some facts. This is all just the same old tripe that lost you the last election. will you never learn? It sounds like the playground at the elementary school in here. It stopped being clever or amusing long ago. Now it is just ignorant. does anyone have anything even mildly intelligent to add?

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2006 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Sorry poor richard, but I think the 'moderate middle' is a construct that doesn't exist. What is immoderate about say, Ned Lamont? It's truly insane that people seem to have swallowed all the lies and ridiculous hyperbole about him. He's simply an entrepreneur, a businessman, a straight shooter. Lieberman is the extremist today --a sold-out, 100% Creature of K Street, and promoter of endless, wildly expensive, dangerously counter-productive wars.

That's really the biggest problem Dems face -- Karl Rove frames an issue, and the media, lapdogs that they are, obliging trots it out it like it were fact.

Here's a new WSJ poll that shoes Web pulling ahead of Allen in Virignia. Guess he macaca-ed himself.

Posted by: Drindl | August 28, 2006 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Such an elegant tome I drafted. forgot to complete my second to the last paragrap.

Add- "...state and religious tolerance) will drive the moderate middle and independents to a well-positioned democrat."

The holy Polish nuns would have slapped my knuckles with a ruler for that ommission....or maybe just glared at me with 'the Look'.

Posted by: poor richard | August 28, 2006 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Here's an interesting article by 2 former governors warning of possible widespread failure of e-voting machines in Nov.--this should be a WARNING to all democrats. You will notice that the rush into e-voting machines, by the orwellian titled 'Help america vote' act -- will have the opposite effect --as was intended. And of couse, who controls these mandated machines? Why republicans, what a coincidence.

'Unfortunately, faced with the deadlines for deploying enhanced voting systems that were set by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, most electoral jurisdictions have been unable to follow this prudent path. That's why we believe it will be essential this year that jurisdictions have backup and contingency plans that anticipate a wide range of possible failures in their electronic voting systems, including those that occur in the middle of the voting process on Election Day (or days).'

If democrats still lead in the polls, but lose after the votes are 'counted' -- this time I will be out in the streets, my friends, and I hope you will join me.

Posted by: Drindl | August 28, 2006 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I don't pay that much attention to Ann Coulter, so why do you guys. Sure, she throws out a ton of red meat, but that's why she sells books. I don't buy her books, I recommend you don't but her books. Would hate to lose respect from my liberal friends cause I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. You people are awfully thin skinned.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 10:52 AM | Report abuse

It's nice to see everyone up and going at it so early on a Monday Morning....and off topic as usual.

What has Laura's drinking and driving habits and Ted's philandering and driving habits have to do with dissecting Liebermans support.

They are interesting topics for conservative talk radio and Air America, but we should stay away since they get our freind bhoomes blood pressure up.

The unions are a bit of a bellweather even though they may have lost significant influence since the American industrial crash of the 70's. Also, with the pendulum swinging towards more direct federal interevention in social issues such as retirment plans, social security and health insurance, one must conclude that there is a broader non-union segment that has very similar beliefs as the unions.

My sense is that this is the moderate middle we have discussed in the past few weeks with the dethroning of Mr. Lieberman by those willing to come out and vote in the primary.

I think that segment-once known as 'Reagan Democrats' will abandon the Republicans if they once again align themselves with the neocons.

Politics is a pendulum. It has swung to the extreme conservative side of the aisle because the Democrats abandoned a major part of their base in the 90's.

The arrogance of the conservatives in using the children of the middle as cannon/smart bomb fodder (because they needed the tuition benefits the military offers) using less than straight forward justification, shifting the balance of the fruits of business and industry dramatically away from labor, towards management and shareholders (bragging about job growth when the reality is that job growth is in the volatile service sector-McJobs and Walmartization)and attempting to institutionalize a particular religious ethos that flies in the face of two fundamental positions fought for by the Founding Fathers and Mothers (separation of church and state, and religious tolerance).

The pendulum is has started to move in the other direction. Joe L. may be in the right place at the right time in this election. But in 2008 he will be a dinosaur.

Posted by: poor richard | August 28, 2006 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Coulter plagarizes Hitler. Go see for yourself. She's human garbage, fillth, a filthy, lying skanky she-man ho. But that's what you admire most, isn't it, republican?

Posted by: Drindl | August 28, 2006 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Don't feed Bhoomes. He is a troll on the far-right organizations' payroll. He is paid to assault the REAL Americans, i.e., those who still believe in the Constitution.

Ignore him, he'll go away.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2006 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes, Accusing Dems of wanting to break bread with the terrorists is such typical GOP propaganda I'm wondering if you aren't in their employ.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 28, 2006 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Joe, "How Does the Wind Blow" Lieberman may now consider a method of withdrawing our over-extended force in Iraq.

This pious panderer doesn't want to leave the Good Ol' Boys Club in D.C..... and since throwing our troops under the bus is no longer the ticket, he's ready to talk timetables and throw Rumsfeld under the bus. At least until he is reelected.

Connecticut, don't trust him. It's all about Joe.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 28, 2006 10:38 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes -- have you actually read/listened to the things that Ann Coulter says? I have no problem with conservatives generally, although I obviously disagree with their views. Their is ample room for disagreement, certainly. But Coulter literally accusses anyone who isn't a republican of being a traitor to their country. She has also demonized, amongst other people, 9-11 widows who want the 9-11 commission's recommendation's adopted.

Are you honestly telling me that she simply speaks "the truth" about Democrats? B/c if that's your view, then I honestly have lost any and all respect for you. Ann Coulter is everything that is wrong with both the modern republican party and our approach to politics more generally.

Posted by: Colin | August 28, 2006 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Come on Drindl, if Ann Coulter is as bad as you make her out to be, stick to what she has actually written or said, don't make up stuff about being a Nazi. She does support killing the terrorist who are trying to kill us. I know you libs would rather break bread with them and commiserate how its all the republicans fault to cause them to want to kill innocents.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Laura wasn't drunk when she killed that guy? Well, I guess she has no excuse whatsoever and was just grossly negligent. What do they call that? Depraved indifference to human suffering?

Guess it runs in the family.

Ann Coulter is a Nazi. There's no other way to put it. She plagarizes Hitler and advocates murder. But that's what your republican 'values voters' eat up with a spoon.

Posted by: Drindl | August 28, 2006 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I continue to be aghast that Lieberman has shown such disrespect for the democratic process. Lamont clearly won the nomination of the party Lieberman claims to have such respect for! I have to say, if this had been the other way around, and Lamont had lost the primary but had decided to carry on as an independent, I am certain Lieberman would be attacking with a vengence.
Lieberman's sudden criticism of Rumsfeld, really showcases the LIE in Lieberman. This man will do anything to retain power. I really hope the voters don't buy it.

Posted by: Tish Pearlman | August 28, 2006 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Come on Aug 28, please use some type of nom de plume or moniker for you simpletons. Yeah, I know all the polls and professionals have us losing the house and maybe the senate this year. That's why I am looking forward to November when all of those polls are proven wrong and watch all of you libs cry about the process. I only buy history books, never but anything that is current about today because I live it and have a good memory.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes is evidently as mentally deranged and as intellectually deficient as the farting fratboy in the WH and his gang of paranoid idiots. He is addicted to the propaganda spread by the Ministry of Truth through its voice, Fox News.

Ann Coulter speaks the truth? Ann Coulter is an exhibitionist who is only interested in inflammatory monologues that help her sell her "books". All she cares about is the money that she rakes in. The funny part is that delusional morons like Bhoomes do not realize that they are being used by Coulter and are only too happy to part with their money.

And, by the way, Bhoomes, check out the polls. They certainly do not look good for the Greedy Oiled Perverts party... It will only get worse.

The Gassy Old Prevaricators will have to steal the elections to remain in power. It is now obvious to a majority of Americans that the current garbage in Congress has nothing to show for after six years but corruption, depravity, and abysmal incompetence.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2006 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Chris, you are obviuosly stupid. Manslaughter is murder in the 3rd degree. Not a mistake in 3rd degree. Last time I checked Laura Bush did not hold any elected position, plus she wasn't drunk at the time she killed her friend. A little nicety you Kennedy scyophants overlook.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 9:58 AM | Report abuse

I had forgotten about Laura bush and how she killed a guy with her car. It was her boyfriend, and they were both coming from a party where they had argued. But of course the media has given her a free pass.

Posted by: Drindl | August 28, 2006 9:54 AM | Report abuse

"How nice for you to change manslaughter into a mistake, its murder my friend, not a mistake."

Actually, that's exactly the difference between manslaughter and murder. Manslaughter is a mistake and murder isn't. So, uh, maybe you should leave the legal conclusions to the professionals?

Posted by: Chris | August 28, 2006 9:51 AM | Report abuse

How about the person Laura Bush Killed while she was driving. One of the qualifications to get in the Bush Crime Family is that you must have blood on your hands. The neocons will not Kennedy's horrible mistake rest.

Posted by: Larry | August 28, 2006 9:47 AM | Report abuse

You love to bet don't you Sandwich Man. Since when do union endorsements count for anything, except maybe the kiss of death because their endorsed candidates always seem to lose. I belong to AFSME and always get a big chuckle when they send out their proganda magazine. Why on earth should I condemm Ann Coulter when she only speaks the truth about you guys and gals. I can't wait until November, when we whip you for the umpteeth time. As Mr. T used to say, "Come on and get your whupping"

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 9:43 AM | Report abuse

'honesty and repubicans' -- ttwo words that don't belong in the same sentence.

And as far as bush lying, if his lips moved, then he lied. Because I don't think a single word of truth has escaped his lips since the day he was born.

Anybody who wants to talk about Ted Kennedy might want to look into the case of the girl who worked for Joe Scarborough, who died so mysteriously in his office...

Posted by: Drindl | August 28, 2006 9:36 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes, if you're so sure Lieberman is going to win this fall, would you care to back up that assertion with a bet?

NARAL, and LOTS of other left-wing interest groups (HRC, PFAW, LCV, most other than labor...) endorsed Chafee in 2000. It's little surprise that many are doing it again. Those groups also endorsed Rep. Connie Morella (MD-8) for reelection in 2002, when Chris Van Hollen unseated her. You have to remember that those groups have 501(c)(3) status and need to be able to claim they are non-partisan. They HAVE to find token Republicans to endorse so they can make that claim. So I wouldn't read as much into those endorsements of someone who's solid on all their issues like Chafee.

Don't count out labor endorsements totally; they have a lot of members, there are still a lot of union households, and more than anything they can mobilize massive quantities of volunteer hours.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 28, 2006 9:24 AM | Report abuse

As a Democrat, I'll apologize for Ted Kennedy if you'll apologize for Katherine Harris, Ken Blackwell, James Inhofe, Tom Coburn, and the like. As for Joe Lieberman -- whose moralistic blather disgusted me long before 9/11, and who was originally a 'creation' of the Buckley family, trying to 'punish' Lowell Weicker, -- the Republicans can have him.

As for 'honesty' and Republicans, I am still waiting for the first Republican to stand up and condemn Ann Coulter's books full of lies.

Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | August 28, 2006 9:16 AM | Report abuse

wow bhoomes! You really live in the deepest part of neocon fantasy land! Clinton followed the LAW when he used wire taps. Bush did not follow the LAW. Simple is it not? At least to normal americans it is. WMDs are in Syria. Wow again! What can someone really say about that? The stress of the impending massive defeat coming the Reps way is really showing. I hear some forms of medication will help.

Posted by: Larry | August 28, 2006 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Don't pay any attention to bhoomes. He's either brain-damaged or incredibly low IQ-- I haven't figured out which yet. Maybe both.

' and late last week said he would consider a proposal offered by Connecticut Republican Rep. Chris Shays that would establish a timetable for U.S. troops to leave the country'

Could Joe be a bigger scumbag? As Teddy above said, according to Joe, if Democrats propose a timetable, it's 'aid and comfort' to 'the enemy' -- but if republicans propose EXACTLY THE SAME THING -- why, that's just fine then.

Can we just call him CUT AND RUN JOE now?

Posted by: Drindl | August 28, 2006 9:13 AM | Report abuse

You ask where the weapons are, they were destroyed in the first gulf war and the subsequent bombings that lasted for a decade afterwards. Did Tony Blair lie, sure and I group him in the same boat with Bush. Both should be voted out of office. They KNEW that the Niger Uranium contection was false, and they knew that we had destroyed the vast majority of his weapons stores. Did Clinton and his administrators lie too? Yes, but they didn't go to war on it. Now if Bush wanted to go to war on the Neo-con idea that creating a democracy in Iraq would fix the middle east, fine. But make that arguement to the American public, and more importantly to the US Congress.
And I will give you the fact that Ted Kennedy killed an innocent girl through his own stupidity and recklessness. I like to think that he has learned from that mistake and tried to live a better life afterwards.
But you still didn't answer my question of if you support a trial or censure for George Bush on the domestic wiretapping issue?

Posted by: Andy R | August 28, 2006 9:05 AM | Report abuse

"Plus he has some ethical issues that concern republicans, something we know dems do not care about but we republicans want honest public servants."

You need to scrub the scales from your eyes, really hard.

The gang in the WH and the one in the GOP - controlled Congress are the most abject thugs that have ever run the U.S. They lie, they cheat, they engage in war - profiteering, they raid the Treasury with their wars of choices and their allocation of no - bid contracts to their cronies, they are corrupt to the bone...

Cunningham is in jail, Savafian is on trial, Abramoff has been convicted and is singing like a canary, De Lay is under indictement, Ney, Burns, and Pombo are going to be indicted in the next few months, Claude Allen was convicted of theft, etc... Those are the Republicans whose honesty you praise so much. With people like you, no wonder the U.S. is falling further and further into the gutter.

As for Lieberman, he is all about Lieberman. he does not give a damn about the Democrats or the Republicans. The only thing he cares about is to cling to his seat. He has already proven that he will do or say anything to remain in the Senate.

The people of CT and the rest of the Democrats do not want an egomaniac opportunist like Lieberman in the Senate.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2006 9:04 AM | Report abuse

How nice for you to change manslaughter into a mistake, its murder my friend, not a mistake. Come on Andy don't make me lose respect for your intellecual capabities by spouting nonsense about Bush lying. If Bush Lied, so did Clinton, Blair and all the western intelligence agencies. Secondly we do KNOW SADDAM HAD THEM, SO WHERE ARE THEY? Could be in Syria, couldn't they. I have always been polite to you when you made errors but don't push it. It is Monday afterall.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy made a tremendous mistake and a young woman died. George Bush and Dick Cheney lied about WMD's and over 2000 young americans died. I think I have 1999+ things I can say about the republicans.
Also if you 'want honest public servants who are not above the law' do you support trying George Bush for the blatant illegal wiretapping that he approved?

Posted by: Andy R | August 28, 2006 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Andy we want honest public servants who are not above the law. I know that may be difficult to understand being from a state thats lets it senator get away with drunken driving and manslaughter, and its citizens approving by sending the miscreant back to the senate over and over again. As long as you guys have Teddy Kennedy, you can never say anything about the republicans.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes, 'republicans want honest politicians'. I hope you wrote that before your morning coffee cause if not there is no excuse.
IL, I agree that union endorsements don't matter as much anymore, and I think the reason why is that they no longer can donate soft money to a campaign. That is why they have been replaced by the netroots donors whom aren't afraid to pony up when a candidate they like runs.

Posted by: Andy R | August 28, 2006 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Traditional special interest support matters less and less than in the Democratic Party. NARAL for example is supporting Chafe in Rhode Island even though his victory helps maintain a Republican majority than will deny women's rights. A Lieberman victory potentially results in him caucusing with the GOP (regardless of his promises) which perhaps means a GOP majority that harms working people. Hence that is why the netroots community is seeking to displace the special interest and consultant DC money makers inside the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | August 28, 2006 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Lieberman is pretty much a lock to win reelection because the overwhelming amount of republicans will vote for Joe. Not that we for 1 second believe he is a conservative, its just that we are pragmatic enough to realize its either going to be Lieberman or Lamont winning this Nov. so why waste your vote on a republican who has no chance. Plus he has some ethical issues that concern republicans, something we know dems do not care about but we republicans want honest public servants.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 28, 2006 7:06 AM | Report abuse

Chris, there's a Lamont-Lieberman story embedded in your blog, but you buried it at the end: it's not about the unions, although asking loyal unionists to split their tickets between Democratic Congressional candidates and a Connecticut-for-Lieberman Senate candidate is silly.

Your last link is the real story: now that GOP Congressmen are calling for the President to cut-n-run, RGJoe's gonna look into it. Remember, Democrats undermine our Commander-in-Chief at our nation's peril -- but when Shays shifts in the political winds, Lieberman's right with him!

Posted by: TeddySanFran | August 28, 2006 3:08 AM | Report abuse

I don't know whether labor endorsements or the total shift of fundraising from Lieberman to Lamont is more important.

Of course Traitor Joe is calling for Rumsfeld's resignation--he wants the job himself.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 27, 2006 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Was the SEIU neutral? I thought SEIU 1199 supported Lamont.

Posted by: WaPo reader | August 27, 2006 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Was the SEIU neutral? I thought SEIU 1199 supported Lamont.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 27, 2006 10:57 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company